America has had some great presidents, many mediocre ones and a few bad ones. But we’ve never had one like Barack Obama. He’s the first who thinks the job is beneath him. He’s the first who turns political give-and-take into a crisis by refusing to negotiate with Congress. He’s the first who thinks the way to more power is to inflict pain on ordinary people. The move to barricade the World War II memorial reveals the mentality of a tin-pot dictator. The limited government shutdown did not need to affect the memorial because it is open 24 hours, without gates and often without guards. But to turn public opinion in his favor, Obama’s goons trucked in barricades to keep out World War II vets and other visitors. By one estimate, the barricades and workers cost $100,000. The same punish-the-people attitude led to shutdowns of other parks and historic sites that get no federal funding. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting,” a Park Service ranger told The Washington Times. The ranger cited the order to close the parking lot at George Washington’s home in Mount Vernon so visitors couldn’t use it. The cheap trick captured the contrast between a revered president and the current one. I’ve been saying for a while that there is no bottom to Obama. He’s not just ruthless. He’s without scruples and honor. Now the shutdown has ended, it will bring only a temporary respite from the crisis atmosphere in Washington . When it comes to his countrymen, Obama always chooses conflict over cooperation. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter can rest easy. We have a new worst president.

In today’s world of identity theft, most people try to guard their personal information as much as possible. But what do you think people would say if they knew that the federal government could be allowing convicted felons to gain access to their information including Social Security Number and address?On Wednesday, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, was testifying before the Senate Finance Committee. They were grilling her on all of the problems associated with Obamacare. During the hearing, there was a short discourse between Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sebelius and it went like this:Cornyn: “Isn’t it true that there is no federal requirement for navigators to undergo a criminal background check.”Sebelius: “That is true. States could add in additional background checks and other features, but it is not part of the federal requirement.”Cornyn: “So a convicted felon could be a navigator and could acquire sensitive personal information from an individual unbeknownst to them?”Sebelius: “This is possible.”I’ve not heard of any instance of a convicted felon being hired as an Obamacare navigator, but with the thousands that have been trained, there is bound to be some. Without any kind of criminal background check, anyone convicted of burglary, murder, rape, assault, etc., could be hired on as an Obamacare navigator, giving them full access to peoples personal information.The hypocrisy of this is that the same liberal Democrats that don’t want criminal background checks for jobs or to work with Obamacare are the same people that have been demanding universal background checks for gun and ammo ownership. They insist that universal background checks are necessary to keep guns and ammo out of the hands of criminals, felons, the mentally ill and virtually everyone else if they had their way. But when it comes to your personal information that could easily be used to steal your identity and financially ruin you, they don’t have a problem with it. What if a convicted rapist worked as an Obamacare navigator and gained access to the personal information that let them know if a woman lives alone or not and where she lived?The American people should be screaming at their congressmen and women and demanding that they take immediate action to protect their personal information and demand criminal background checks for all government employees, including Obamacare navigators.Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/13170/obamacare-providing-personal-info-convicted-felons/#ixzz2jzsmrXThRead more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/13170/obamacare-providing-personal-info-convicted-felons/#KzlZ9mDLS0zf57Yl.99

The Tea Party Economist: Keynesian Krugman: Higher Taxes and Death Panels Will Be Required. Written by Gary North

Princeton’s Paul Krugman is a Keynesian. He is the Keynesian. He is the resident economist for the New York Times.Economics teaches that there are no free lunches. Therefore, an economy can allocate scarce resources in two ways: by price competition or by government committees. Keynesianism seeks to find a middle ground. It wants allocation by “high bid wins” (auction), but also by government committee (bureaucracy). The correct word for allocation by bureaucracy is “rationing.” Keynesians never use this word. That is because it is accurate.When you say “medical rationing,” think “death panels.”In a recent speech at a synagogue, in a question and answer session, he made it clear that the present welfare state cannot long be financed by today’s taxes. Taxes must rise — maybe in 2025. Costs must be cut. Certain medical procedures must be curtailed. There must be death panels.Yes, he really said the Sarah Palin phrase. It got a chuckle. This occurred around 2 minutes and 20 seconds into the video.Death panels are of course mandatory. There are no free lunches. If a society does not allocate resources by price competition, it must allocate by government committees.If you are flat on your back, you had better not be over age 60. You had better not be suffering from a chronic and possibly fatal illnessRead more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/11/07/keynesian-krugman-higher-taxes-death-panels/#EJvt0c4UrJEpOruh.99

The Tea Party Economist: ObamaCare’s Sinking Ship: 16 Democrat Senators Meet With Obama. Written by Gary North on November 7, 2013

As reported in The Los Angeles Times, 16 Senate Democrats met with President Obama on November 6 to discuss the crippled ObamaCare website. They warned him of a looming crisis of confidence. The news report said that they are facing the task of explaining the site’s failures to their constituents.These were the 15 Democrats who are up for re-election in 2014. They were joined by the Senator in charge of coordinating their campaigns.Senator Mark Begich of Alaska was blunt.“It’s absolutely unacceptable in this day and age that the administration can’t deliver on the promises it made to all Americans because of technical problems with a website. Alaskans should be appreciating the critical benefits of the Affordable Care Act, but there is an understandable crisis in confidence because the administration has yet to get it off the ground.”The words “absolutely unacceptable” and “crisis of confidence” made things clear. They are in big, big trouble, and they know it.Eleven Senate Democrats have said they are willing to vote to delay the enrollment deadline. This is another way of saying “John Boehner and the Republicans were right.” This is not good political positioning.Jeff Merkeley of Oregon announced:“I am very frustrated with the rollout of the exchanges. The dysfunction and delays are unacceptable. I remain deeply convinced that this is a ‘show me’ moment. This will not be resolved until Americans can, day after day, sign onto the health marketplace, review their options and complete their applications.”So far, there are no signs of relief. The website remains crippled.These are signs of what is facing Democrats in 2014.There is an economic law: “When the price of something rises, less is demanded.” The price of enrolling in the program — in time, in frustration, and insurance premium fees — is rising rapidly. If the website stays crippled, the millions of expected uninsured citizens will not sign up. The economics of ObamaVCare will go belly-up. Really sick people will find ways to enroll. Healthy people will not. That will make the cost of insuring sick people prohibitively expensive.Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/11/07/obamacares-sinking-ship-16-democrat-senators-meet-obama/#MvDjw38h1ZE0AeHK.99

The Tea Party Economist: ObamaCare Showdown in Texas: Obama vs. Perry. Written by Gary North on November 7, 2013

President Obama flew to Dallas on November 6 to talk about ObamaCare. To greet him, Governor Rick Perry issued a press release.President Obama deceived the American people by promising that anyone who liked their health care plan could keep it, but millions of Americans are now discovering that simply isn’t true. Now, he’s coming to Texas in a desperate attempt to salvage his ill-conceived and unpopular program from a Titanic fate by preaching expansion of the same Medicaid system he himself admits is broken. In Texas, where Medicaid already consumes a quarter of the state budget, we simply need the flexibility to implement fundamental, state-specific reforms to our Medicaid program, instead of a one-size-fits-all Washington mandate, before it bankrupts our state. Mr. President, Texans aren’t the reason Obamacare is crumbling; Obamacare is the reason Obamacare is crumbling.”Obama came to Temple Emanu-El. Assembled there were “navigators” who have been hired by the Communities Foundation of Texas. They will try to help people enroll in the program by using the crippled http://www.healthcare.gov site.There were also volunteers from the ecumenical – read liberal – Dallas Area Interfaith. They have raised $100,000 to distribute 30,000 pamphlets promoting ObamaCare. This was reported by the Dallas Morning News.Note: that is over $3 apiece for a pamphlet. You can easily print 30,000 paperback books of 250 pages and a 4-color cover for $3.The news report said that “the president used the appearance to ramp up pressure on Gov. Rick Perry to expand Medicaid.” So, this was a political showdown. The President said: “I know that sometimes this task is especially challenging here in the great Lone Star State.”He made a promise: “This looks like a pretty motivated group. . . . I’m going to be right there with you the entire way.”White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted that this visit was not a desperation move by the President to shore up support for ObamaCare, which is either MIA or DOA. “I can promise you that whether or not the website worked we would be going to places like Dallas, where the education effort and outreach effort is underway, to reach these dense pockets of uninsured Americans.”Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/11/07/obamacare-showdown-texas-obama-vs-perry/#Y541clQJdhptYrFO.99

The Tea Party Economist: Politics: A Time to Lose, and a Time to Win. Written by Gary North on November 6, 2013

What if Al Smith had won the presidency in 1928? The economic boom that was produced by the Federal Reserve’s expansionist policies in 1925-29 would have ended on schedule. He would have been blamed for the Great Depression in 1930-32. He would have run again in 1932. He would have lost.Franklin Roosevelt would not have run for President in 1932. He probably would have lost a 1932 bid to be re-elected Governor of New York. (He had replaced Smith.) There would have been no New Deal. There would have been no Harry Truman.In politics, there are times to lose. Republicans should have learned that in 1932. They should have looked back at 1928 and sighed, “if only Hoover had lost.” But politics is all about winning the next election, not the election after the next election.The Federal Reserve is creating the conditions for the perfect storm. Under Bernanke’s reign of error, it has expanded the monetary base from $800 billion to $3.6 trillion. Today, it looks like the FED has the best of all worlds. It is counterfeiting $1 trillion a year in digital money. Interest rates are low. Despite this, the economy is barely growing. Unemployment is still over 7%. But no one in high places is blaming the FED for its policies of monetary hyperinflation.Meanwhile, ObamaCare is fast becoming a visible disaster. Millions of Americans have received “Dear John” letters from their insurance companies. They are losing their coverage. They cannot find comparable policies. They cannot go to http://www.Healthcvare.gov to find what is available.If, on February 15, federal judge Paul Friedman announces that the promised federal subsidies to people buying health insurance on Healthcare.gov or any other federal insurance exchange are illegal, because the ObamaCare law neglected to authorize them, and if the Supreme Court upholds his decision, the Democrats will face a perfect political storm.There are times to win an election. There are times to lose. Voters don’t know in advance when it’s time to lose. They always think it’s time to win. They are wrong.The Tea Party has its slogan: Repeal ObamaCare. In 2014 and 2016, it is going to win with this slogan. The election in Virgina for governor has shown the way. The Republican, a Tea Party guy, was trailing Terry McAuliffe by 12 points. Then he began hammering ObamaCare. He was out-spent 2 to 1. The Republican Establishment ignored him. Yet he lost by only two percentage points.If he had started out with just one issue — repeal ObamaCare — he would have won. He now knows this. He has said as much. “Despite being outspent by an unprecedented $15 million, this race came down to the wire because of ObamaCare. That message will go out to the entire country tonight.” These were his parting words. Too little, too late. Close, but no cigar . . . this time.Positioning himself as a Tea Party candidate looked risky when Senator Ted Cruz read Green Eggs and Ham in his filibuster against ObamaCare. It doesn’t look risky today. It won’t in 2014 and 2016.The country club Republicans can still win a nomination during the last months of the reign of Ben Bernanke by running against a former Democrat. They will find that Janet Yellen’s reign will not be conducive to smooth sailing.When the perfect storm created by the FED at last hits the world economy, and when the federal government’s deficits overwhelm the bond markets, the Tea Party’s ship will come in. Until then, it is good enough to get experience running for office, from dogcatcher to county commissioner. I call this the Dogcatcher strategy. I wrote about it 13 years ago. (Click the link.)Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/11/06/politics-time-lose-win/#D3D6idZ3CY6lBS55.99

Will your personal info be safe with Obamacare? By Associated Press November 7, 2013

WASHINGTON – Obama administration officials are facing mounting questions about whether they cut corners on security testing while rushing to meet a self-imposed deadline to launch online health insurance markets.Documents show that the part of HealthCare.gov that consumers interact with directly received only a temporary six-month security certification because it had not been fully tested before Oct. 1, when the website went live. It’s also the part of the system that stores personal information.The administration insists the trouble-prone website is secure, but technicians had to scramble to make a software fix earlier this week after learning that a North Carolina man tried to log on and got a South Carolina man’s personal information. A serious security breach would be an unwelcome game-changer for an administration striving to turn the corner on technical problems that have inconvenienced millions of consumers and embarrassed the White House.Two computer security experts interviewed by The Associated Press said that clearly the better option would have been to complete testing.“The best scenario is to have done end-to-end testing,” said Lisa Gallagher, vice president of technology solutions for the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, a medical technology nonprofit. That it wasn’t done “would cause me some mild concern,” she continued, adding she would advise a relative or close friend to wait until the website is stabilized before plunging in.Asked former White House chief information officer Theresa Payton, “If you haven’t done end-to-end testing, how can we say with certainty how hard or easy it is for cybercriminals to attack at different points in the process?”“It makes me shudder a little,” said Payton, a former bank security executive who now has her own company.Payton served in the George W. Bush administration and has been consulted by congressional Republicans but says she has no partisan agenda on the health care law. “We need to help because we have to make this right,” she said.The website was supposed to provide easy access to a menu of government-subsidized coverage options under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Administration officials say they remain confident it is secure.“When consumers fill out the online application, they can trust that the information they’ve provided is protected by stringent security standards and that the technology underlying the application process has been tested and is secure,” Medicare administrator Marilyn Tavenner assured the Senate’s Health Committee on Tuesday.But a short while later, Tavenner acknowledged the Carolinas security breach. “We actually were made aware of that” Monday, she said in response to a question from Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. “We implemented a software fix.”It was not immediately clear how the North Carolina man was able to view the personal information of the man in South Carolina. However, a vulnerability that has afflicted websites for years is known as “horizontal privilege escalation,” in which a legitimate user of a website slightly alters the string of random-looking characters in the website’s address or inside downloaded data files known as “cookies,” causing the system to display information about the accounts of other users. It can be protected against by a well-designed website.Tavenner, a respected former hospital executive, has emerged as a key cybersecurity decision-maker for the health care law. Her agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is charged with carrying out the Affordable Care Act.According to federal law and policy, all government computer systems must have a security certification before going live.Tavenner approved the Sept. 27 security certification for the health website, which read: “Aspects of the system that were not tested due to the ongoing development exposed a level of uncertainty that can be deemed as a high risk.”It called for a four-step mitigation plan, including ongoing monitoring and testing, leading to a full security control assessment.The agency’s top three information security professionals signed on an accompanying page that said that “the mitigation plan does not reduce the risk to the … system itself going into operation on Oct. 1” but that its added protections would reduce risk later and ensure full testing within six months.HealthCare.gov has two major components: an electronic “back room” that did get full security certification and the consumer-facing “front room” that’s temporarily certified.The back room, known as the federal data hub, pings government agencies to verify applicants’ personal information. It does not store data.But the front room does. That’s where consumers in the 36 states served by the federal website create and save their accounts. While the individual components of the front room did undergo security testing, the system as a whole could not be tested because it was being worked on until late in the game.Tavenner testified that was the reason she had to issue a temporary certification. The decision was brought to her level because of the overall magnitude of the project, she said. She said she didn’t voice the security concerns to her boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, or to the White House office that oversees federal agencies.Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is investigating whether that decision compromised security. “Did the administration officials who signed off … know the full risks associated with the website, and if so, why did they decide to go ahead with the launch anyway?” said spokeswoman Caitlin Carroll.Some of the strongest supporters of the health care law have expressed unease over security. “This is a paramount concern,” said Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “Consumers have to be absolutely certain that when they go on and they fill out that application … no one can hack into that and steal their Social Security numbers or identity,” Harkin added, as Tavenner testified before his panel.Thomas Dougall, a lawyer from Columbia, S.C., says he doesn’t trust the system anymore.Dougall told the AP he buys his own insurance and went on HealthCare.gov last month out of curiosity to see if he could save money. Ultimately, he realized his current plan is cheaper.He thought nothing more of it until he got home last Friday and played a message from North Carolina resident Justin Hadley, who said he received Dougall’s personal information after trying to log on with his own username. Dougall first thought Hadley was a scammer, but then Hadley emailed him screen shots.Hadley said that once he got past the login screen last Thursday he received links to documents meant for Dougall, with his information. “I was shocked,” said Hadley, of Burlington, N.C. “After the initial shock wore off, I knew I needed to contact (Dougall) so he knew what was going on.”Administration spokeswoman Julie Bataille said that as of Tuesday it’s the only report the government has gotten of that particular problem. “We put a fix in place to prevent it from happening in the future,” she said.

GOP-USA: No retreat, no surrender. By USA Today November 7, 2013

Let the finger-pointing begin: Here come the surrender Republicans, always quick to throw up their hands and say we should just start copying Democrats.Sadly, the surrender caucus of the GOP puts up more of a fight against conservatives in primaries than they do against disastrous bloated-government policies that come out of Washington. Imagine how much better our country would be if they fought for conservative principles in the halls of Congress instead of fighting against conservatives in elections.It’s disheartening that every time a conservative Republican loses an election, the surrender caucus pounces. It’s even more disheartening when the loss of an election in a purple state like Virginia is used by the moderates as an excuse for us to become moderates everywhere, even in bright red states like my home of Kansas.My solution is the same proposed by Ronald Reagan many years ago: “Let’s have a new first party. A Republican Party raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels. A banner instantly recognizable as standing for certain values which will not be compromised.”This fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is not just about winning elections. It is about saving America. If the Republican Party becomes a mirror image of the Democratic Party, conservative Americans all across our great country see little reason to vote, and Republicans will win no more.Just witness Kansas this year. My conservative primary challenge against three-decade incumbent moderate Republican Pat Roberts has already changed the way he governs. He turned on his longtime friend Kathleen Sebelius, whose confirmation he ensured by endorsing her and voting for her — twice.This year, Roberts finally voted against a deal to raise the debt ceiling, but before that he had cast 11 votes to raise it. And he now is desperately trying to run away from his vote earlier this year in favor of Barack Obama’s $600 billion tax hike. You won’t see him voting for another tax increase before Election Day.Fighting for conservative principles makes our country stronger even though we don’t win every election in purple and blue states. The harder we push to advance the cause of conservatism on every front, the more likely our elected officials will actually represent conservatives all across America.Dr. Milton Wolf, a radiologist, is a Republican primary candidate in Kansas for the U.S. Senate. He is also President Obama’s unapologetically conservative cousin.A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

The CIA is paying AT&T (#HYPERLINK “http://quote.foxbusiness.com/symbol/T/snapshot”T) more than $10 million a year to provide phone records for overseas counter-terrorism investigations, the New York Times reported, quoting government officials.The No. 2 U.S. mobile service provider is cooperating under a voluntary contract, not under subpoenas or court orders compelling the company to participate, the paper said. (http://r.reuters.com/juk54v)AT&T did not confirm or deny the report but said payments from governments were routine for lawful data.The report comes amid widespread political uproar after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents describing how the U.S. government collects far more internet and telephone data than previously known.Under the AT&T arrangement, the CIA supplies phone numbers of overseas terrorism suspects and AT&T searches its database to provide call records that may help identify foreign associates, the paper said.Most of the call logs provided by AT&T involve foreign-to-foreign calls, the paper said.AT&T does not disclose the identity of the Americans calling from the United States, and masks their phone numbers when it produces the records, the paper said, quoting the officials.AT&T said all government data requests were handled in a lawful and proper manner.“We ensure that we maintain customer information in compliance with the laws of the United States and other countries where information may be maintained,” AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel said in an emailed statement.“Like all telecom providers, we routinely charge governments for producing the information provided.”

Keynesian Krugman: Higher Taxes and Death Panels Will Be Required. Written by Gary North

Princeton’s Paul Krugman is a Keynesian. He is the Keynesian. He is the resident economist for the New York Times.Economics teaches that there are no free lunches. Therefore, an economy can allocate scarce resources in two ways: by price competition or by government committees. Keynesianism seeks to find a middle ground. It wants allocation by “high bid wins” (auction), but also by government committee (bureaucracy). The correct word for allocation by bureaucracy is “rationing.” Keynesians never use this word. That is because it is accurate.When you say “medical rationing,” think “death panels.”In a recent speech at a synagogue, in a question and answer session, he made it clear that the present welfare state cannot long be financed by today’s taxes. Taxes must rise — maybe in 2025. Costs must be cut. Certain medical procedures must be curtailed. There must be death panels.Yes, he really said the Sarah Palin phrase. It got a chuckle. This occurred around 2 minutes and 20 seconds into the video.Death panels are of course mandatory. There are no free lunches. If a society does not allocate resources by price competition, it must allocate by government committees.If you are flat on your back, you had better not be over age 60. You had better not be suffering from a chronic and possibly fatal illness.Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/11/07/keynesian-krugman-higher-taxes-death-panels/#Yp8hBV47h2byYHb7.99

Remember those unions that helped lobby for Obamacare? They too started realizing it was a bad deal, but Obama’s taking care of them.Weeks after denying labor’s request to give union members access to health-law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law’s substantial taxes.Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting “certain self-insured, self-administered plans” from the law’s temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.That’s a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.Insurance companies and self-insured employers that hire outside claims administrators would still be liable for the fee, which starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year and is projected to raise $25 billion over three years.Unions, a key Obama ally, have increasingly criticized the Affordable Care Act as threatening the generous medical plans held by many members.So if you are one of those individually insured people who is losing your doctor, too bad for you. But unions get “the law” altered because they are more special than you.Wasn’t this supposed to have something to do with “fairness” and “equal access” to health care? As George Orwell pointed out, in all such schemes, some of us end up being “more equal” than others.Once again we see that the Affordable Care Act, despite being called “the law of the land” really isn’t a law at all in any normal use of language. A “law” is supposed to consist of a rule that one can know in advance and understand. A law, even a bad one, will give you the power to predict the future because you know the rule will be enforced.Obamacare is not a law; it is simply the empowerment of Obama’s hirelings to make up new rules whenever they want to do so. Everything can be altered at whim so that the Obama Administration can reward their friends and punish everyone else.Anyone who is trying to pretend that the Affordable Care Act does not include a death panel should think about this flexibility to the law. How soon before we start seeing truly unequal treatment? Is there any reason to expect the health care bureaucracy to be less ideologically driven than the IRS?Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/11/obama-takes-away-insurance-changes-rules-unions-can-keep/#pukt2R4JDC14JjKj.99

Rush uncorks on major Republican ‘betrayal’ Started by ilona trommler Written by Joe Kovacs Radio host Rush Limbaugh

The Republican Party “betrayed” its own candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, in the race for Virginia governor, says radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, claiming party leaders want to make New Jersey’s Chris Christie the GOP frontrunner for president in 2016.“It’s a shame what happened to Ken Cuccinelli,” the top conservative voice said in his post-election analysis Wednesday. “He was betrayed by his own party. … Here was their chance to have a Republican governor in the state of Virginia, and they didn’t care.” Cuccinelli was defeated Tuesday by Democrat Terry McAuliffe with athin margin of just over two percentage points, 47.74 percent to 45.29 percent. Robert Sarvis, a Libertarian candidate, collected 6.52 percent of the vote.Meanwhile, Christie cruised to re-election as New Jersey’s governor, with a landslide victory over Barbara Buono.Limbaugh lashed into the GOP establishment’s treatment of tea-party favorite Cuccinelli, saying, “They didn’t want him to win, this is the dirty little secret. I don’t even think it’s a secret now. Such is the animus toward the tea party in the Republican Party establishment that they are perfectly comfortable with a Christie win and a Cuccinelli loss, because to them, that’s a tea-party loss. So now the Republican establishment can run around and claim the tea party is an albatross around their neck. The tea party is the death knell, they’ll say.”He noted the Republican Party spent three times as much money four years ago as they did on this year’s race, and that the Chamber of Commerce didn’t contribute anything for Cuccinelli this time.“It could have been won. That’s the really frustrating thing,” Limbaugh said. “Now they’re just going ape [in the Republican establishment]. They’re so happy, they can’t see straight” because “Chris Christie is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.”He also said public opposition to Obamacare had a “huge impact” in putting Cuccinelli in contention.“Do not fall for this notion that Obamacare didn’t play a role,” Limbaugh explained. “This election could have been won, folks, with just average effort from the Republican base.”“The Republican Party would not mind at all if the takeaway in Virginia was it was a Terry McAuliffe landslide against the tea party. I’m not exaggerating,” he added.He noted some people might wonder if the Republican brand was tarnished for their role in the recent government shutdown, and explained, “Republicans in exit polls were not blamed for the government shutdown. But the Republican establishment wants people to think that tea party was responsible for it. I never thought I would live to see this kind of self-sabotage.”Meanwhile in New Jersey, Limbaugh said the Democrats “didn’t even mount a real opponent.”“The Democrats never once attacked Chris Christie in that state,” he said.“There was no real Democrat effort to unseat Christie. Now what does that tell you? And now you’ve got so many people in the media celebrating the Christie win as the road to the future for the Republican Party. What does that tell you? I’m tired of the media picking our [presidential] candidate for us, and they’re trying to do it here. … The Democrats didn’t want to defeat Christie. What does that tell you?”He noted that despite Christie’s easy win Tuesday night, exit polls in New Jersey had Hillary Clinton beating him by 4 to 6 points in a potential presidential matchup in 2016.Limbaugh also criticized Christie, who reportedly refused to campaign for Cuccinelli in Virginia.“So Christie refuses to help another Republican, joins in this fray that the Republican wackos caused the shutdown, and [suggests], ‘There isn’t going to be any of that childish behavior if I get there. We’re never gonna shut down the government. We’re gonna work with the Democrats.”Limbaugh did see a ray of hope for those on the political right, though, noting “more people voted against McAuliffe than voted for him.”Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/rush-unloads-on-major-republican-betraya…

Christie Still at War With GOP Base Started by Gunner Panobscott By John Gizzi @ Newsmax

By winning Tuesday night in a landslide election for his second term as governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie moved so far to the left, it may be difficult for him to win the Republican nomination for president come 2016.The GOP governor won in one of the bluest states — where President Barack Obama beat Republican Mitt Romney by 18 points in 2012. To win, Christie had to morph close to not only blue-state values and views, but become close to Obama himself — and he did just that.Key positions Christie has taken in New Jersey — backing Al Gore’s view that global warming is “for real” and caused by humans; his public slamming of the National Rifle Association and conservatives such as GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky; his acquiescence to gay marriage — all will come back to haunt him in what likely will be a fierce Republican primary fight ahead.Last year Christie infuriated Republicans by embracing candidate Obama when the president arrived in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, just days before the presidential election.At that point, polls showed that momentum for Romney stopped and shifted dramatically to Obama.Many in his own party felt Christie was giving a boost to the Democratic president at the expense of Romney. Christie also declined to invite Romney for a visit to the storm scene.“Christie’s strategy of embracing Democrats and criticizing conservative causes and figures has worked in his big re-election tonight, but in terms of his national ambitions, he’s playing a dangerous game,” David Pietrusza, historian and author of three best-selling books on presidential election years, told Newsmax.“He enjoys little margin of error, having endangered his standing with his party’s national right-of-center base,” Pietrusza said.During his governorship and campaign, Christie played the role of happy Republican maverick, earning kudos from shows like MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” while angering some of the key constituencies of the modern Republican Party.Chief among them is the NRA, so influential with swing voters in elections that even Democrats are loath to criticize them.Christie has stridently attacked the Second Amendment group. He called “reprehensible” an ad run by the NRA that pictured Obama’s daughters and pointed out that they attended a school protected by more than a dozen armed guards.“I think we need to have a large, national discussion … and gun control has to be part of it, too,” Christie said in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn., last December.Christie noted that New Jersey has the second toughest gun control statutes in the country — laws the NRA has called “extreme.”Christie has also angered Christian conservatives, a group that by some estimates tallies nearly a third of Republican voters.In August, Christie signed a law that would levy criminal penalties against parents and Christian ministers if they counsel youth to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. One couple recently filed suit against Christie, charging the law infringes on their rights as parents.And while Christie repeatedly proclaimed opposition to same-sex marriage and vetoed a bill to legalize the unions, he surprised many conservatives when the state Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage — and Christie ordered the state’s acting attorney general not to appeal the decision.“It’s definitely not a profile in courage,” Brian Brown, head of the National Organization for Marriage, told Politico. “You’ve got a court in New Jersey that doesn’t understand that it’s supposed to be interpreting the law, not making it up out of thin air.”Christie withdrew his appeal because he doesn’t think there’s a likelihood of succeeding. “There’s no doubt it’s going to affect him” politically in a 2016 Republican primary, Brown said.Ralph Reed, head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, told Newsmax that Christie “has a case to make to social conservatives.”Reed, a strategist in presidential campaigns and the first executive director of the Christian Coalition, suggested that Christie might emphasize to social conservatives that he is a faithful Roman Catholic and that he oversaw the defunding of Planned Parenthood in his state.“I think in some ways, he’ll face the same challenges that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani faced,” Gary Bauer, president of American Values and himself a former presidential hopeful, told Newsmax.“He’s a Northeastern Republican and so far no one has proven that such candidates can deliver anything in the Northeast, and they end up having a hard time appealing to the base in the Midwest and the South.”Bauer also voiced concerns about Christie putting the brakes on the appeal of the judicial ruling favoring same-sex marriage because “it fits into a bigger trend that Republicans are being told to follow by the consultants — to just ignore the issue” of same sex marriage.The New Jersey governor also made national news by calling Sen. Paul and other Libertarian Republicans “dangerous” for opposing government surveillance programs.Garden State conservatives almost always give low marks to Christie’s appointees to key positions.His first state attorney general — an appointed position in New Jersey — was Paula Dow, a registered Democrat who took strong stands in favor of abortion and gun confiscation and said “no” to New Jersey joining in the state attorneys general lawsuit against Obamacare.Pietrusza, the historian, offered up a comparison of Christie to a GOP moderate from a previous era.“Christie may be on the path not of the Wendell Willkie of 1940 — who won the nomination as a liberal Republican and fresh face — but of the Willkie of 1944 who had so alienated his party’s base that he crashed and burned instantly,” he said.

Governor Chris Christie refused to campaign for Ken Cuccinelli Started by Sonia

Tuesday night and again Wednesday morning, NBC’s Chuck Todd reported that New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie refused to campaign for Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia Republican who narrowly lost his own governor’s race to Democrat Terry McAuliffe. “They begged Christie, and you can make an argument,” Todd said on Morning Joe. “That to bring a Chris Christie to Northern Virginia might have helped. But Chris Christie is worried about his own brand.”Part of Christie’s brand problem, though, is his behavior during the closing days of last year’s presidential campaign. After running one of the most divisive administrations and re-election campaigns in recent memory — in the wake of Hurricane Sandy — Barack Obama went to New Jersey seeking bipartisan credibility. And in the eyes of many, Christie went above and beyond to give it to him.No one would have faulted Christie for putting politics aside to work with the president in the best interest of his state, especially after a devastating hurricane. But Christie appeared to go out of his way to aid and abet the president with photo-ops and praise that bordered on the melodramatic.It certainly didn’t help that all of this occurred just a few weeks after Christie’s keynote address at Romney’s convention, where the New Jersey governor seemed a lot more interested in helping himself and did next to nothing to make the case for our nominee.In the closing days of yesterday’s off-year election, Christie was coasting to easy re-election by margins in the twenties, and he is a mere two states away from Virginia. It would have cost Christie nothing more than six hours to do a Cuccinelli rally. But still he refused.Christie’s current brand might endear him to the Morning Joe bubble-boys, but they will turn on him, just as they did Romney, the moment he is a threat to a Democrat’s quest for the Oval Office. In a presidential campaign, in both the primary and general elections, Christie needs the base to stand in long lines for him.That is the brand Christie needs to worry about.Had Christie taken just a half-day to stump for Cuccinelli, not only would that have helped wash the Sandy stain away; it might have actually made him a hero to the base for both defying the Morning Joe crowd and helping to drag Cuccinelli over the finish line.Besides the obvious, here is one big difference between the Tea Party and the GOP Establishment: When the family fight is over, the Tea Party still fights for the family. We didn’t care for Mitt Romney, but once he was our guy, we fought our hearts out for him. And we would have done the same for the establishment choice had Cuccinelli not prevailed. In Virginia, though, after the family fight was over, the Establishment scooped up their marbles and crybabied all the way home.From the looks of the exit polls and the massive money gap, that crybabying might have been the margin that handed Terry McAuliffe and, more importantly, the Clintons, a vital 2016 swing state.If Christie wins the 2016 Republican nomination but loses Virginia, and with it the general election, last night should be remembered as the most short-sighted and spiteful cutting off of the nose to spite the Tea Party in years.The GOP Establishment and Morning Joe crowd keep lecturing the Tea Party about how it is all about winning elections. In Virginia last night, that talking point was laid bare as nothing more than a lie.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/06/Report-christie-refused-to-campaign-for-cuccinelli

What kind of president is this one, that he does not knowthe law he promotes? If the president has dignity and honesty should abolishthe law that it promoted. SHAME ON YOU!!!

Obama apologizes for health insurance mistakeThe president says he regrets that some Americans are losing plans that he said they could keep. ‘Going to do everything we can’ »nt Obama says he’s sorry for Americans losing insurance By Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo News |

President Obama said in an interview on Thursday that he’s sorry a number of Americans are being forced to change their health care plans despite previous assurances the Affordable Care Act would allow them to keep their existing plans.”I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” Obama told Chuck Todd during an interview with NBC News at the White House.”We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”Obama’s admission represents the latest evolution on the issue dating back to before the Affordable Care Act was even signed into law in 2010. Up through September of this year, Obama was adamant that the Affordable Care Act would not impact Americans who already had their own health insurance.”If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything,” Obama said in a speech on September 25th speech in Prince George’s County, Maryland.But already 3.5 million Americans have had their healthcare plans cancelled, according to the Associated Press. Most of these are individuals who purchased plans directly from insurers, rather than through a workplace. The reason for the cancellations: their plans changed since the signing of the new healthcare law. While Obama was promising that you could keep your plan if you purchased it prior to the signing of the law on March 23, 2010, what he didn’t say was that if a provider changed the plan its grandfather status would become void.Since individual plans change frequently, the chances of individuals being able to keep their plans was always low. In fact, buried in Obamacare regulations dating back to 2010 is an estimate that 40 to 67 percent of individual plan owners would lose that coverage because of normal turnover in the individual market.About 95 percent of Americans with health insurance are covered through their employers or a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid. Conservative estimates now project the majority of those 5 percent of Americans who buy their own plans (about 14 million people) will likely have to make some kind of adjustment.The White House and administration surrogates have tried to mitigate criticism by contending some of those individuals will actually end up with cheaper and better plans. Nonetheless, Obama’s failure to include the “grandfather” clause in his if-you-like-it-you-can-keep-it speeches has turned into a growing controversy.After the law went into effect in October, early reports began to emerge that Americans who buy their own insurance were starting to get letters from insurance companies informing them that their current plans were being cancelled and that they would need to replace their coverage in order to be in compliance with the Affordable Care Act.White House officials continued to insist that Obama did not “lie” to the American public about the issue. However, throughout October, the administration’s stance continued to evolve.“What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage,” White House Spokesman Jay Carney said on October 28th. “So it’s true that there are existing health care plans on the individual market that don’t meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable CareAct.”After four years of sticking to his “if-you-like-your-coverage” promise, Obama recalibrated on Oct. 30. “Ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you’ve got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning,” he explained.Just over a week later, that recalibration has become an apology.Here is a timeline, compiled by The Washington Post, showing how Obama has addressed the “if you like your plan” promise over the past four years: June 15, 2009, in a speech to the American Medical Association:“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” March 19, 2010, in a speech at George Mason University four days before the ACA became law:“If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.” October 4, 2012, during the first presidential debate with Mitt Romney:“Number one, if you’ve got health insurance it doesn’t mean a Government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can’t jerk you around. September 25, 2013, during a speech in Prince George’s County, Maryland:“Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance -– either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you – especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything.” October 30, 2013, during a Boston speech on the Affordable Care Act:“Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office. That was part of the promise we made. But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you’ve got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.”

Post navigation

One thought on “No 516 “En mi opinion” Nov, 8, 2013”

We are a flock a group of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community.

Your website offered us with valuable and work on . You have made ​​an impressive
job and our whole community could be grateful to you .
Undeniably Account that you stated . Your favorite reason appeared to
be at the web easy thing to take into account of . I tell you , i
certainly annoyed consider think concerns just do not recognize
about . You controlled well as defined on all managed to hit the nail on the top
without having side-effects , people cAN could take a signal.
Will likely be again to get more. Thanks